Commentary on popular culture and society, from a (mostly) psychological perspective

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Liberal Says Liberals Are More Open-Minded and People who Disagree are Idiots

So I went out to get the mail and in it was my monthly issue of the American Psychologist, which is the Journal of the American Psychological Association. I generally skim over the studies to see if there is anything relevant that I can use as a practitioner, but generally, the journal ends up with the rest of my junk mail (which is rarely as politically correct as the APA journal) in the garbage heap. However, today, one of the articles entitled, The End of the End of Ideology caught my eye.

I noticed that it was yet another social psychologist arguing that liberals had so many more "positive" qualities than conservatives. The tone of the article looked familiar and I noticed it was written by the same NYU professor, John Jost, who was one of the researchers in an earlier article I had written about before, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. A more fitting title for the previous article would have been, "If we could just understand the social motivation of those stupid, rigid, close-minded conservatives, surely, we could change their wicked ways." But of course, a professor of Dr. Jost's stature would want to appear as unbiased as possible in order to make that point, so it is best to write in a manner that the APA journal has come to love: a vague, overly-wordy and cumbersome style that leaves most readers asleep before the third paragraph.

Getting back to the current regurgitation article on the same topic, Jost finds in his research that liberals scored higher on openness than conservatives, what a surprise! "Results revealed that all six of the openness facets were associated with liberalism rather than conservatism: openness values (r=-.48), aesthetics (r=-.32), actions (r=-.27), ideas (r=-.24), feelings (r=-.24) and fantasy (r=-.19)" (American Psychologist, October 2006, pg. 663). So liberals are more open to ideas, feelings, and actions than conservatives. Dr.Jost, why not try this hypothesis out in the real world beyond the ivory tower? If you want to find out if liberals are open to new ideas, actions, and feelings, I challenge you to do the following:

1) Post comments around on various lefty blogs such as FireDogLake, The Daily Kos or Alicublog. These comments should disagree with the view of the host or view of the blog or diary; for example, state that you support Israel at the Daily Kos, wonder if feminists who are against sexual harrassment should support Bill Clinton at FireDogLake, and/or politely stand up for colleagues at Alicublog who you feel have been treated unfairly just because they disagree with the views of the host. Now, check back to evaluate scores for these paragons of openness for their ideas, actions and feelings. If your comments have been troll-scored by the Kossacks, deleted by Jane Hamsher, or ridiculed by whoever runs the Alicublog, give an openness score of zero. Negative bonus points if you are called a douche, told to stay in your place so as not to "assail your betters," or have a racial slur thrown your way.

2) Next, talk to the speakers' committee at NYU where you work and see if they will sponsor a Minutemen Forum for the students and faculty. Give a positive score if they agree, negative if they refuse and instead sponsor Noam Chomsky. Bonus negative points if they agree to sponsor the Minutemen but the students attack the speakers and sling racial epithets at them like the tolerant and openminded liberal students at Columbia University.

3) Finally, last but not least, suggest to the American Psychological Association that they publish at least one study by a non-liberal in each issue of the American Psychologist. Positive score if they say yes and actually follow up, negative if they write you back a form letter talking about how they will take your concerns to a higher level, and negative bonus points if they tell you there is no such thing as a non-liberal psychologist. Oh, those open-minded liberals!

Dr. Jost, I would love to see the results of your findings written up in the next issue of my American Psychologist; it will re-affirm my faith that the journal does fair and objective research. Somehow, though, I think I will be waiting a very long time.....

Update: Dr. John Ray has more thoughts on Jost's "study." My favorite line of Dr. Ray's is the following: "Jost and his colleagues don't even know what a conservative is so there is NO chance of their findings having any real-world significance." I have to agree.

121 Comments:

In a way, I agree that liberals are more open-minded than conservatives. Liberals tend to be younger, more immature, and inexperienced at critical thinking; that leaves them open to silly ideas like Marxism, multi-culturalism and other half-baked but very harmful ideas.

Conservatives trend older and more experienced, have been there done that and know what they think. Therefore they are not so open-minded to every crackpot eye-rolling idea to present itself.

I haven't seen the article, but I'm assuming that it used something like the NEO-PI to measure openness, correct? If so, it's a self-report measure, making it not terribly surprising that liberals would rate themselves as more open-minded than conservatives, regardless of whether or not they are. They believe themselves to be open-minded, and that's enough right there.

Altemeyer, inventor of the [Right Wing Authoritarian] Scale, believes that there is no such thing as a Left Wing Authoritarian. "I do not think 'an authoritarian impressively like the authoritarian on the right' reposes on the left end of the RWA scale. Rather the contrary," Altemeyer declared. In fact, Altemeyer finds that low RWAs are "fair-minded, even-handed, tolerant, nonaggressive persons...They score low on my prejudice scale. They are not self-righteous; they do not feel superior to persons with opposing opinions."

Why do these studies never include something like a Coercion Index? (Informally, the "There Oughta Be a Law" Index.") That is, the willingness to force people to do what you want them to do. I'd like to see how "liberals" stack up against conservatives on this index. I think we'd see "The Authoritaritan Personality" from another angle then.

I'm not going to guess at what the final score was but would like to add an observation from a sales training I blogged about at the time. As part of a HR mandated training we all took, we did two things of interest. One was a variation of the Myers-Briggs profile and the other was an active listening exercise. In the latter, the instructor asked you to pair off with a person who had different views on a political issue than you and let them explain their viewpoint to you. Interestingly, while several of the conservatives sturggled with the "do not argue" point, none of the liberals could finish the exercises. In fact our two most vocal liberals refused to play. One actually said no one who disagrees about gun control is sane.

On the testing part, several of the conservatives tested oddly -their answers were much more permissive than one would expect and there was considerable polarity in the response. The instructor said he had seen this before and it came down normally to a strong belief. On questioning the class, while the conservatives would often say X is wrong, they would also say if someone does X and it doesn't hurt me, its none of my business. In another example, they would also argue that X is wrong but that doesn't give me the right to be mean to someone because he believes or does it.

I found the fact the issue came up with conservatives, and to some extent moderates but not with the self selected liberals.

Also, it's taken for granted that being open-minded is a good thing, but often being open-minded simply means an unwillingness to take a stand, make up your mind, have principles, apply critical thinking skills, etc.

I'm fairly open-minded, but I still don't really consider a crucifix in urine, for example, to be art. And while I haven't seen the Vagina Monologues, it sounds incredible silly.

If I might quote myself? This was a post about the smaller crowds who turned out for the anti-Cindy Sheehan marches a year ago.

We're all busy, we all have stuff to do, we're all on the crusade of living LIFE. And if you live life to it's fullest, the best you can, that takes work. And dedication. There's a conviction there that doesn't need your photo in Newsweek for validation. Or a hand lettered, dork-ass 'F@ck Capitalism' sign for proof of commitment. WTF is that? No one understands that. So who are these people talking to? Each other, I guess. Not to anybody I know, that's for sure, because we don't have time for 'out there'. We're all busy. We're all working on life.

That's the disconnect, I think. I see these 'protestors' on Gateway Pundit, etc., and all I see is Clare, from 'Six Feet Under'. A caricature. Written to be so clever and tortured and privileged and cutting edge; and so far from anything remotely connected to real life, that it renders serious consideration moot. I don't mean to sound like an apologist for the lack of sign wavers for, um...my side. But I think I know why there weren't huge red, white and blue crowds. We're busy. We've got things to do, friends to support and a way of life ~ of living ~ we cherish and defend. Who we are doesn't need a rally, a parade or a public face. I'm not rushing to buy a bus ticket to D.C. because Mother Sheehan's in town. That happenstance doesn't begin to meet the threshhold of galvanization ~ of a call to action. She and her buddies are hardly worth notice, less mind airfare and an ulcer. We're busy with better things to do. And are better for it.

Great post Kelley. It is also worth noting that many liberals confuse the word "tolerance" with "acceptance." Tolerance means that we permit or refrain from bigotry, while accepting means that we bless and agree. I tolerate liberalism, some of my best friends etc. But I do not accept it as a valuable ideology.

Could someone please direct me to a study by a "non-liberal" that is worthy of inclusion in the American Psychologist so that I can complete task #3? I would much prefer to recommend a specific study or even a specific researcher thatn just asking to include a "non-liberal."

I am a conservative and I tend to agree that conservatives are less open-minded than liberals. That is because many conservatives, myself included, believe that having an open mind is fine -- but not if it is so wide open that your brain falls out.

Based on my experiences with liberals, they have no objection to doing just that. Certainly the lemming-like behavior of the Kossacks or the inhabitants of Firedraglake testify to just that.

One thing that has always struck me about the Liberal mind set is the inability to separate a difference of opinion from a basic mental or character flaw. If someone disagrees with their stance then that person is either insane, stupid or evil. They can not simply disagree, they have to completely vilify their opponent. They characterize the current administration as either Evil or Stupid. (BTW there are no stupid jet fighter pilots, not live ones at least) I don’t agree with the DNC but I don’t think their leader ship is either stupid or evil, I just think that they have a different mind set and approach to solving problems. I think this “black or white” method of thinking is what leads Conservatives to consider Liberals as naive or immature since maturity brings on the realization and that most of life is a collection of decisions made in pale grey. I admire those that have strong convictions and stand up for what they believe but the reality of most situations is that no position is 100% defensible and if you refuse to consider and address a dissenting opinion you expose yourself to ridicule

It's always nice to invent "qualities" that you can "measure" to support your pre-conceived views. "Openness" is nebulous enough to be construed almost however one wants.

Watching the cable news channels I find that, when a conservative and liberal, are both giving views on a subject that it is almost always the liberal who shouts and talks loudly to prevent the conservative from stating their view point. Most of the liberals in my family think I'm a jerk because I will rebut their stereotypical liberal statements although they feel free to knowingly insult my beliefs despite that I keep them to myself during family gatherings unless confronted.

I wonder how liberals would score on egocentricity? (Shameless plug)I blogged on that today.

There are plenty of close-minded conservatives out there. They're the ones who have made up their minds, and have decided that "my way is the best way for society."

There are plenty of close-minded liberals too - they've also made up their minds, and have decided that "my way is the best way for society."

The only difference is in the set of things that consistitute "my way."

The only redeeming factor of these "my way" conservatives is that they will typically admit that they're stuck, and make weak excuses for it ("I'm too old to change.")

In my experience, "my way" liberal, on the other hand, refuse to consider themselves to be close-minded. Instead, they will simply assert that they're right, and you sir, are close minded for disagreeing with them(!)

It's quite an interesting comparison - conservatives are close-minded because they disagree with liberals. Liberals are open-minded because they simply have the "truth".

You're likely to get "Wanker of the Day" for this. Someone, probably Jane will claim that you're ignoring all the hate and vitriol spewed from the right, and that means you're clearly an obscene idiot.

Which, in typical fashion, will miss the point of your post entirely, but then that seems to be the way the libs are arguing these days - Strawman to the left of me, Strawmen to the right.

Anyways, great post. But it will fall on deaf ears. Everyone who holds "the truth" is deafened to contrary opinion. Classic religious fervor, dressed up in atheist clothing.

That is what is known as a counter example. I am just suggesting the researcher broaden his horizons.

Jim C:

There are many good researchers out there who are moderates, libertarians, liberals who believe in unbiased studies and even, gasp--conservatives who might have some good points to make. Nicholas Cummings and Rogers Wright are progressives who straddle both sides of the fence comes to mind as does the work of Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, authors of the "Roots of Radicalism" are others.

"One thing that has always struck me about the Liberal mind set is the inability to separate a difference of opinion from a basic mental or character flaw. If someone disagrees with their stance then that person is either insane, stupid or evil... I think this “black or white” method of thinking is what leads Conservatives to consider Liberals as naive or immature.."

Oh, the irony! Not only did YOU just ascribe a character flaw to liberals, but look at the remarks of your compatriots here!

Your point, generally, is a good one, if you leave out the needless generalizing. Certainly, people would do well to not always ascribe a character flaw simply based on a fair difference of opinion. However, it is unnecessary and wrong-headed to pretend that "Liberals" are the only ones that do that. Especially when there is evidence of non-liberals doing the same RIGHT HERE!

But then again, I know everyone here just LOVES them some over-generalizations.

Helen, thank you for your very logical and thought provoking write up regarding the American Psycholocigal journal article. I enjoyed reading it, because your points were not only well stated, but also very funny. It is quite humouous to see liberals attempting to justify their own stereotypes with trumpted-up statistics and generalized "Ivory Tower" studies. The best part is when someone like you then displays this sad attempt for what it really is. It seems that most of us commenting here also understand the double standard of liberal "open-mindedness", and continue to chafe against it. All we can really do is keep pointing out the truth of what actually happens in practice when liberals illustrate how open to diverse ideas they truly are.

Just yesterday I was on a liberal thread where someone brought up the Kruganski/Gesler study which made a similar claim about conservatives being more narrow-minded, bigoted and fearful.

I pointed out simply that when I moved from blue, blue San Mateo Co, CA, a couple of years ago to red, red, Denton Co, TX, my friends in California felt at liberty commenting what a bible-thumping, creationist, hick, cracker, redneck, president-killing backwater I was headed to. Here in Texas, when I tell people that I hail from the San Francisco Bay Area, I have yet to have anyone make a less than gracious remark.

My simple personal anecdote was treated with a torrent of narrow-minded invective, including that, like all conservatives, I am a pathological liar.

Once here in Texas, I got swept into an email discussion group that consisted of highly religious folk up in arms over, primarily, illegal immigration and gay marriage. I figured I'd give them a blast of my libertarian p.o.v. My hat is off to them. They did not shut down as my liberal friends tend to do when presented with contrary opinion. I didn't persuade anybody, but they grappled with my points in an honest way without resorting to invective and ad hominem attacks.

My experience leads me to believe, despite what liberal psychologists are saying, that it's just the opposite... liberals are less highly evolved than conservatives.

Thank you for the direction to some "non-liberal" researchers/authors. I will take a look at their current work and see if there is anything interesting that I can encourage the APA to write about or include.

As Kelley and Mark L pointed out, open-mindedness may not be all its cracked up to be.

My four-year-old is the most open-minded person I know. He's not squeamish about bodily fluids (aesthetics). He loudly believes in free speech (values). He likes to hug his sister until they both fall over (feelings). He imagines unlikely cohabitation possibilities -- "when I get married I'm going to go live with grandma" (ideas). He thinks he's a helicopter (fantasy). He takes off his clothes and runs naked outdoors (actions).

Maybe Jost has proved that liberals are more open-minded. The question is, has he proved that the kind of open-mindedness he's testing for cooresponds to social virtue.

Where's your control you stupid b*tch? Just what the fLuck is your phd in anyway? Certainly not science you queefer.

Hot DAMN! That educated, civilized lingo just floats off the tongue, don't it? Wishin' I had me some a' that class 'n schoolin' them folks do. Hell, I don' eden know what one a' them there 'queefers' is.

Can anyone show me where any conservative said "Sure, the Iraqis will love us! We'll be home before Christmas!"? Because I have never encountered that notion from actual conservatives, only liberals putting that comment or variantions of it in nthe mouths of their politictal opponants.

The relevant question, of course, is whether the backwater to which you moved was in fact bible-thumping, redneck, creationist, etal. It only doesn't matter if you're a relativist (which conservatives tend to be, by and large).

Can anyone show me where any conservative said "Sure, the Iraqis will love us! We'll be home before Christmas!"?

I guarantee I didn't hear any pro-Iraq War conservatives note there was a chance we'd still be there, 3 years, 300 billion dollars, 2700 US deaths and 45,000 US casualties later, and still not have an endgame in sight.

"Getting back to the current regurgitation article on the same topic,Jost finds in his research that liberals scored higher on openness than conservatives"

Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Remember: They're not 'liberals' just because they call themselves that. They're not 'progressive' just because they call themselves that. They're not 'inclusive' just because they call themselves that. Don't help them with their propaganda (and make no mistake - your using their terminology confuses people and hurts your argument). The people you're dealing with are leftists, elitists, and intolerant of dissent. They're quasi-intellectual thugs, immature hypocrites, and liars.

Not that you should take their attacks personally. They're just as vile and vicious among their own kind.

I’m likely one of those people whom he thinks of as not open-minded. However, in my mind he is not asking the proper question. His problem is that he needs to understand the difference between being open-minded and accepting baseless arguments. I’m perfectly willing to change my mind based on facts, but when someone tries to sway me with nothing more than emotion, then I tend to resist. And of course that is the problem with a number of those on the left. Instead of presenting any facts, they try to sway opinion with emotion using the rationalization that they believe it so that makes it a fact, and if they do use something that they try to pass off as a fact, it can usually be shown to be incorrect. This phenomenon is not limited to the left, but also appears from the fringes of the right and their religious beliefs. They don’t do any better at trying to sway me. Over the years I’ve changed many of my ideas, but I changed them because of acquiring additional knowledge or having errors in what I thought I knew pointed out to me, not because someone presented emotional pleas. I might also add that in some cases I was ashamed of my earlier beliefs and was left wondering how I had come to believe something which was so wrong. So my thought is that he needs to conduct a study on how open to change people are based on the quality of the arguments, not just how open they are to being convinced by rhetoric. My observations of people tell me that the left is much more prone to being swayed by rhetoric alone, whereas those on the right tend to want more facts in order to change their minds.

"Your point, generally, is a good one, if you leave out the needless generalizing. Certainly, people would do well to not always ascribe a character flaw simply based on a fair difference of opinion. However, it is unnecessary and wrong-headed to pretend that "Liberals" are the only ones that do that. Especially when there is evidence of non-liberals doing the same RIGHT HERE!"

I have seen similar behavior among other groups, including the far right and among Christians. People generally don't take well to having their belief systems challenged, and there's an old saw about avoiding subjects such as politics and religion in conversing with any social group.

However - Sorry, Andrea, but while many groups act badly on occasion, the left displays the most vicious and frightening behavior I and many others have encountered. Examples abound - this post is filled with links to some of the worst behavior along these lines, and much, much more is easily found. Since you object so strenuously to generalization: Let's see your examples from other groups, and compare for ourselves.

The people "right here" in this forum do feel strongly about leftists. But I am not seeing the kind of bitter smearing and hatemongering they are taking note of on leftist sites. Certainly there's nothing here referring to the left along the lines of: "Where's your control you stupid b*tch? Just what the fLuck is your phd in anyway? Certainly not science you queefer."

"Will someone explain why Dr. Helen has posted a of Dana Plato, aka Kimberly of Diff'rent Strokes, on her page?"

Umm... That's a picture of Helen, not Dana Plato. Glenn (the Instaluckybastard) has posted other pictures of Helen, and yep, that's her all right.

"I guarantee I didn't hear any pro-Iraq War conservatives note there was a chance we'd still be there, 3 years, 300 billion dollars, 2700 US deaths and 45,000 US casualties later, and still not have an endgame in sight."

Then you must not have listened to President Bush. Check out the September 20, 2001 speech. Specifically: Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.

It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

and

Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.

I do not have an open mind. From experience, I have learned that those who approach me with the opening line, "Do you have an open mind" are really looking for an unguarded mind and a place to dump garbage without critical review. Not gonna happen here, no matter how much they stamp their little feet and whine about how unfair I am.

Actually, I heard pro-Iraq war conservatives with military history knowledge say that a counterinsurgency takes ten to twenty years. They didn't mention casualty rates, but if you measure the casualty rates you've listed against past wars and counterinsurgencies, we're doing amazingly well - by a factor of ten to one.

But in spite of an urge to find (false) consensus by suggesting moral equivalence (appeasement doesn't work with any unreasonable entity), it's hard not to conclude that the experiments listed above would be very, very telling - and reversing them, ideologically speaking, would have a very different result.

Then you must not have listened to President Bush. Check out the September 20, 2001 speech.

That was about the war on terra, not the Iraq War, sport. You'd need to find a speech in early 2003 dealing specifically with the war on secular Iraq noting that it could be a long, hard, expensive, bloody slog.

I think part of the disagreement can be attributed to some of us thinking that evil exists and that some attitudes are just plain wrong. This kind of thinking is anathema to some folks.

Example. I was researching Wicca for a child abuse case. THe parents claimed that their actions were consistent with their religion, Wicca, and therefore protected by the Constitution. I wanted to make sure that what I was hearing was NOT Wicca, but something dangerous. So I called the local Wicca book store and had a wonderful conversation with the lady on the phone. I asked about standard Wicca practices and found out I was correct, what was going on was not Wicca.

I said, yeah, what was going on was bad, thanks for the help. "Well now, don't judge. It is not right to be judgmental" she replied. I answered "Mam, the person in question took their child's gerbil, cut the gerbil's throat, drained the gerbil's blood into a glass and drank it in front of the child." "Oh my God, that evil beast. You get the sick fuck" was her response.

I guess it is easy to not believe in evil and to posess absolute tolerance and forbearance as long as you do not have to look at the difficult, real life details. Kind of like Al Gore and Arriana Huffington decrying SUVs while they fly in private jets. Hmm, that example strikes me as more hypocritical than clueless, but you see my point.

Something rarely mentioned in less rigorous climes as this blog are the effects of age and responsibility on the balance of liberalism VS conservatism in individuals.It would seem few are truly all liberal or truly all conservative, most individuals have self identified mitigating circumstances to their prime moral directives, EG: a conservative with a favorite uncle/aunt that is homosexual, this is often over-looked by the person in question because of personal attachments. In this non-black & white clime, it becomes apparent that some kind of balance between the two points of view exists in most Americans, the shifting of this balance point is the salient of my post here.

Young people, mostly young men, have a vested interest in a certain amount of chaos.Historically civil structures create narrow channels of advancement potential in most societies, slanted towards the newly maturing elites of the status group or if a bit more egalitarian like our society, slanted towards adherents to accepted institutions and methodologies of social advancement.Perceptually young people consider these predetermined channels of advancement to be stifling, unfair and biased towards those whose elders or patrons are already successful in the system.Thus the near-universal perception by the young (ok mostly young men) that a certain amount of chaos is beneficent to the less connected, that social and economic advancement can be had cheaper & easier during times of stress for the culture. EG: the battle field promotion, much more advancement in those types of employment during war then not by a large margin.This perception that chaos is better for the bulk of the young men includes chances to get higher status females since the females personal family fortunes may fall during chaos as might their parental supervision.

Once a young man has gained an acceptable female and gained acceptable land, his vesting changes. He no longer has an interest in chaos.Any half-way intelligent human realizes they have little personal control over what happens around them, and people that have relationships they cherish realize they cannot by themselves protect these people they love and care for. Thus the former adherent of societal chaos suddenly has a vested interest in law and order. He certainly doesn’t want HIS daughters marrying someone from his (former) low class.This self adjusting of the balance point between liberalism (taken to logical extreme = chaos) and conservation (taken to logical extreme = stagnation) is a natural part of the dynamic of human civilization and human personal growth, failing to recognize it for what it is has ruined the lines of communication in western societies and allowed at least two generations of adults to grow to physical maturity without the normal maturation psychologically. Thus the childish left and the FAR too serious right that tries to contain something uncontainable since it is an ingrained portion of our culture.A person reading this may come to believe I have no recourse in mind, but I do: a person may not be able to control the waves of happenstance surging around them, but they CAN learn to surf.In this case that means simply recognizing the childishness of liberalism for what it is, physically adult people still trying to obtain greater social status though methods usually reserved for the young. In other words, the adult libbies are dissatisfied with their position and their place and are willing to tear down the existing societal structures in order to do it, thus the liberal penchant for change for changes sake as well accepting other cultures values as manditorialy superior to our own, after all they reason, what GOOD culture would keep me from power?This also explains the lefts traitorous habits, normally in any culture an invading army can, using the old sociological standard of the bell curve, count on about 5% of ANY population to be unsatisfied enough with their position and place to side with them.In our culture we inherited from the English these numbers are higher, but that is a rant for another day.

How about the so-called "Mission Accomplished speech?" There are others, but this one has 1) irony (because its content is contrary to what was widely claimed) and 2) accessibility going for it.

"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous...The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq."

Lstill not have an endgame in sight.

The endgame has always been in sight, except for those that cover their eyes in wilful, defeatist, and yes, unpatriotic pretended ignorance. As you well know was always the plan from day 1, we're training the ISF to take over the defense of the democratic, constitutional Iraqi government. They have two provinces now, and Maliki expects them to take over completely next year.

Yes, I understand that classical liberalism is quite different from what people refer to today as liberal--left wing is more accurate. BTW, on the political test you mentioned, I always come out a Milton Friedmen libertarian--so I am not conservative in the classical sense, but am often referred to that way because many of my views overlap both right and left. Of course, today, one is referred to as a rightwinger if one is a moderate or libertarian and does not follow left wing dogma 100%.

Anonymous 2:32:

It's good to know there are other libertarian psych professors out there--there are actually more than we realize, many just do not advertise it. I have actually had a number of students and professors email me to say they feel it would not be in their best interests to let their political views be known in their programs. I certainly hope that this is more the exception and not the rule.

I have been a libertarian psych professor for about 18 years now, but I have to remain undercover because everyone in my department hates me and is out to get me and puts things in my liquor and it is because I have a giant penis and because I once saw a spaceship hover above my house and tell me to eat my dog.

Witch doctor stuff, you say that like it is a BAD thing! I agree, much of psychology is not a hard science. But some of it certainly is, the neuropsychological research, memory research, brain and body stuff.

My branch, psychotherapy, is certainly not science. Now research has helped us know what tends to work, but in terms of knowing how to conduct therapy like you engineer and build a bridge, no comparison.

Having said that, I am busy in my psychology practice beause I have a reputation for working fast and helping people get better. I am reminded that there are typically a few voodoo deaths in Haiti every year where folks die from adrenaline poison after they have been hexed. I guess not all witch doctors are good.

Recently on Thinkprogress, I disagreed with the validity of the new Lancet study, mentioned the connections between Iran and both Hezbullah and North Korea, and expressed concern over the global spread of radical Islamofascist ideology. Of course I was accused of spouting Bushite propaganda, but i was also accused of being a Christian (I am a secular humanist with Pagan sympathies, btw). They called me a Christian as if it were an epithet similar to being accused of being a NAMBLA member. Surpassingly strange.

Can anyone show me where any conservative said "Sure, the Iraqis will love us!"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

Vice President Dick Cheney: My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." So he didn't *technically* say "they'll love us," but that would seem to be the general expression. There was also, if memory serves, talk of flowers and candy.

Dr. Helen, in order for your survey to be even semi-accurate, you'd have to have your commentors also post the same number of provocative comments on right-leaning websites like littlegreenfootballs and redstate.com, and find out who got banned more quickly. Something tells me the liberal websites wouldn't be the first to ban people.

Well I didn't RTFA, but those "r = ..." scores look like correlation coefficients since 'r' is the standard way of reporting correlations. So squaring r, the variances explained by these correlations are on the order of 4% to 9%, except for one that is still under 25%. Does this journal routinely publish articles with essentially meaningless correlations, or only when they are trying to make a political point?

Rivenburg above speaks about a conservative with a gay favorite uncle as though it is onorthodox or something. I am a conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical Christian republican, and I have had gay friends for years. Some of them even vote like me for God's sake.

BTW, I took Nick Good's test, and I think it is a silly oversimplification of "liberal" and "conservative", and trying to shoehorn everyone somewhere between facist and libertarian is possibly the most ridiculous generalization I've ever heard. The way the questions were phrased give it away as a leftist interpretation of conservatism and everything else. Sorry, but as a grad student of psychology myself, I am a very sceptical consumer of tests and surveys.

I am reminded of a beautiful line in Dr. Szhivago, where Larisa Feodornova tells the lech who is perpetually after her, when he marvels that her husband's dire enemy would render her assistance in her need, that, "It is only in mediocre novels that people are divided into two discrete camps that have nothing whatsoever to do with one another." I'm quoting from 20 years memory, but my point is that most leftists live in very mediocre novels indeed.

To some extent, Greg is right. There are trolls and jerks on both sides, but what has happened to Democrats is unlike anything I've ever seen. During the 60s and 70s the antiwar crowd were this obnoxious, but they weren't in control of the party. George McGovern was against the war, but he was no Howard Dean and he didn't resort to personal epithets and the kind of characterizations of his opponents that we're seeing from the left today.

Some of them are positively scary, like Pat Leahy attacking the military commissions bill for violating the Constitutional Rights of terrorists. The problem is that these aren't the outer fringes of the left. They're the candidatea and the dominant voices in the party.

There are plenty like this on the Right, as well. Listen to five minutes of Michael Savage's show sometime. I have a relative who argues that the Republicans are bad because they don't treat the Democrats fairly. I'm not sure what that means, other than to let them have their way more often. Maybe Tom Delay drove them crazy. I don't know, but they're acting like spoiled brats.

Is is possible Dr. Helen, that they feel a need to tear Bush down because they're feeling shame at having defended Bill Clinton's behavior and the contrast between his White House crew and Bush's?

Is is possible Dr. Helen, that they feel a need to tear Bush down because they're feeling shame at having defended Bill Clinton's behavior and the contrast between his White House crew and Bush's?

Shame ~ now there's a concept. To quote a certain loser presidential candidate, "Would it were so". Shame itself implies the acceptance of a misdeed ~ a realization one has erred in a such a way as to cause embarrassment at one's actions.

The few times I have commented on left-leaning sites, it's been like the scene from Last of the Mohicans when Nathaniel enters the Huron village and the young braves try to bump him off-stride and let him know he's unwelcome. (To be fair, I have seen at least one right-leaning site with the same feel.)

This morning I went to thinkprogress on a link concerning Bush's so-called acceptance of the Vietnam analogy. I read each of the 200+ posts and instead of warriors, I got the chilling feel of those scenes in any of the Alien movies when the crew stumbles into the brooder chamber and little creatures could come flying at them any second. It was scary. I left without posting.

No need to characterize it further as any of you interested can go there and see for yourselves what liberals in full war-whoop gloat sound like, except to say I didn't see any sign of thinking or any concern about progress. That may sound simply spiteful, but I was honestly appalled.

Can anyone show me where any conservative said "Sure, the Iraqis will love us!"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

Vice President Dick Cheney: My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."So he didn't *technically* say "they'll love us," but that would seem to be the general expression."

In point of fact we *were* greeted as liberators among the Shiites, Kurds, Marsh-Arabs, and other peoples long oppressed by the Hussein regime. The oppressor-class in Iraq, principally Sunnis, of course thought differently. But of course you've set an unrealistic standard of 100% Love and Affection Among all Iraqi People to score political points, haven't you?

"There was also, if memory serves, talk of flowers and candy."

Having been proven wrong, you've shifting the debate and back to making things up.

"Dr. Helen, in order for your survey to be even semi-accurate, you'd have to have your commentors also post the same number of provocative comments on right-leaning websites like littlegreenfootballs and redstate.com, and find out who got banned more quickly. Something tells me the liberal websites wouldn't be the first to ban people."

You really don't want to go there. Honest. The very fact that your post hasn't been deleted proves conservative/non-self-professed "liberal" web forums are MUCH more tolerant than self-professed "liberal" web forums. On such sites as Democratic Underground, DailyKos, etc., "diversity" consists chiefly of arguing whether GW Bush should simply be boiled in oil or skinned first THEN boiled in oil. Post a reply that "Well, perhaps Bush doesn't deserve all the criticism he's gotten." will get your post deleted and your IP address banned forthwith.

Modern liberalism isn't a philosophy so much as a religion, one as severe and unforgiving as the most extremist Islamic sects. Liberals have much more in common with al Qaeda or the Taliban than they will ever admit. You must not only win the debate but also destroy your enemies so they can never rise up against you again.

Helen wrote It's good to know there are other libertarian psych professors out there--there are actually more than we realize, many just do not advertise it. I have actually had a number of students and professors email me to say

Well this may be a valid point I think; at least sometimes. For example - I went to a psychiatrist about 3 yrs back over some rocky relationship issues I was having – to get a non partial second take. The psychiatrist to which I was referred was wearing a Yarmulke in his consulting room. Now his religion is his business, but I found it objectionable, not because of the specific religion. Rather that he saw fit to be in-my-face about it while at work.

I don't rock up to Project Management meetings (I’m a freelance Project Manager) with a 'Atheist, Proto-Buddhist, economic Centrist, Classical liberal’ T-shirt (OK - I'm exaggerating, just a tad, but you get the point...but I must get one of those shirts).

Do your politics and religion thing – whatever floats your boat by all means, but keep it outa my face at work. As it happens, I feel the same about Muslim women who dress as Ninjas…a bit of an issue in one of my old countries – the UK – right now.

All that said - there are I think specific professions and specific scenarios where being up-front about one's politics is germane. I'd like to see all journalists be up-front about their own political views as a matter of course.

The only reason I can see that they are not open and up-front about this, is to hide the inbuilt systemic bias of the organisation for which they work….but I digress….

There was a reference to something similar in the column entitled Science Journal in the Marketplace section of the Wall Street Journal on October 13. The column is entitled "When Terror Strikes Liberals and the Right Vote Further Apart." This is allegedly about what scholarly studies say about how terrorism affects people's voting decisions.

"Reminded of the inevitability of their own death. . ., people try to quench or at least manage the resulting "existential terror" in several ways. They become more certain of their worldview or faith. They conform more closely to the norms of their society. They show greater reverence for symbols of their society, such as flags and crucifixes."

"The result is stronger feelings of hostility toward those with different values and beliefs." Goes on "After 9/11, Americans sprouted flag label pins. Patriotism and approval of the president soared. Tolerance for dissent plummeted." This, of course, is the reaction of conservatives.

And, of course, it is impossible to argue with anybody about the truth or value of these assertions because like all the ridiculous theories about race, class, and gender, it is unconscious. "Building up your own worldview requires disparaging (even unconsciously) that of others. If beliefs that contradict yours have any worth, then by definition they call in question the absolute validity of your own. The result is stronger feelings of hostility toward those with different values and beliefs." Never mind that they have just killed a number of your fellow citizens and want to kill as many more as possible! More from the article: "A worldview that has your nation engaged in a heroic battle against evil seems to be especially effective at soothing fears of your own death."

Of course, it all boils down to the evil conservatives and the saintly liberals and those crazy people who think there are some things that are right and wrong.. "The latest research shows that because such violent political acts are brutal reminders of death, they make conservatives, but not liberals, more hostile toward those perceived as different, and more supportive of extreme military policies."

But you might ask, why didn't 9/11 make liberal New Yorkers more conservative? "Why didn't intimations of mortality push them toward nationalistic fervor? Reminders of death do make New Yorkers cling to their worldview more strongly." "If that worldview has to do with tolerance and peace and prosocial beliefs, then those positions strengthen." (!)

"Something tells me the liberal websites wouldn't be the first to ban people."

Actually as a semi-regular poster on Ace of Spades I have seen (for lack of better label) leftys freely post for some time.

Several posters will engage the individual in dialog once they have made some sort of inflammatory statement and a long and interesting thread ensues. =)

It is not uncommon for individuals to debate several subjects for some period of time, weeks would not be uncommon... The only cases I have noted people being banned is after they have gone way over some line that they had been warned in advance about.

On the other hand, I have been on liberal boards were my posts have vanished in short order.

Just what I have noted, It would be easy enough for anyone to check into several boards with comments and watch.

Re the original thread: One of the anonymoose asked if the APA was trying to make a political point. In 30+ years of being an APA member and reading its journals, when there is a political point to be made, it is ALWAYS along the lines of liberal=good, open, enlightened; conservative=bad, repressed, dull. I say this as a card-carrying Libertarian, so I think I'm objective (or maybe equally subjective) about both the left and the right. The APA is blatantly left-leaning but I think they genuinely believe they are open and even-handed. However, you see more repression and rigid political correctness in psych departments than in business schools.

I like Dr. Helen's attempt to counter a fully researched, controlled study with a series of anecdotal references.

Nice try. I was the science and psychology editor at a university press. There's a lot of dreck out there.

In the first place, the correlations reported here by Jost are hardly remarkable. In the second place, we have no idea what controls were used. Were the groups of comparable educational and socioeconomic strata, for example?

A lot of scientists start to feel good about a study when they can reduplicate its results, not when they've read a mere summary of it.

Dr. Helen: First, I'd like to commend you on your tolerance for pain. Idiots are fairly strongly represented here, I see---especially the anonymous ones.

You've hit on a rhetorical device I find interesting and all too evident these days. It's the tendency on the Left to decorate mere opinion as scientific fact: that is, wrap a preconceived idea in faux-scientific vocabulary and embellish it with graphs and footnotes, etc. in hopes that it will bamboozle lesser intellects by virtue of its packaging alone. As you can see by the comments from the lesser intellects here, it suceeds admirably.

A representative example can be found on the site, Democratic Strategist. They start with the intellectually dishonest premise that the Right is naturally authoritarian and proceed from there to offer 'proofs', all of which--to absolutely no one's surprise--prove their 'premise.' An honest premise would have consisted of some open-ended question like 'What is the nature of Conservatism?' and offered various diverse evidences in an attempt to discover truth. But this is not an analytical paper, despite its trappings. Their efforts would be laughable were it not for the undeserved prestige they enjoy and the undue influence they exercise on our politics. Democrats actually develop policy on the basis of such nonsense.

A major practitioner of this voodoo philosophizing--and big favorite of progressives until recently--is the execrable George Lakoff. Putting aside for the moment his professional unsuitability to the task of serving as a political authority--hey, it didn't stop Chomsky, either--he is a big fan of dividing voters into two artificial groups: hard, fascist conservatives who take after their fathers and soft, nurturing liberals who take after their mothers. It must look good on a cocktail napkin. Fortunately, his star is on the descendant. A very good take-down of Lakoff was written by liberal Peter Berkowitz and featured on the blog, Powerline, recently.

I would also recommend your attention to the work of Marxist Eric Gutstein who teaches 'social justice through mathematics' at the University of Illinois. He, too, is able to dress a sow's ear in the garb of scientific analysis ("The geometry of inequality").

In short, this is a transparent device designed to baffle us with bullshit.

I'm always so touched when right wingers express their sincere belief in dissent and disagreement, and how much they value honest debate. It's just lovely.

Every time I listen to Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh, or Laura Ingraham, or Michael Savage, or the Vice President or Bill O'Reilly, or Jonah Goldberg, I think -- "Now these are people who value different opinions."

Thank you, Dr. Helen, for continuing their great mission, to unite this country in respect for all views.

" As it happens, I feel the same about Muslim women who dress as Ninjas..."

A few years ago, I had a friend whose then-kindergarten-aged sister saw some women in Islamic gear while the family was out shopping and said, "Look, Ninjas!" in a very loud voice. The rest of her family nearly died of embarrassment as they moved to "shush" her rather quickly...

To Anonymous at 7:34 pm: Dr. Helen's first proposed experiment could be conducted without having people argue in bad faith. Get some conservative volunteers to post at Daily Kos or other liberal sites and some liberal volunteers to post at Little Green Footballs, Right Wing News or other conservative sites. The volunteers could post their sincere views and see what happens.

Everytime I post a dissenting opinion at a conservative blog, the conversation quickly devolves into name-calling and other ad-hominem attacks. Does that anecdotal evidence carry any weight, or are we only considering anecdotes that fit in with white conservative Christian paranoid persecution complexes?

Will anyone here acknowledge that the following conservatives have poisoned the tone of debate:

I was a student of Altemeyers in Manitoba in 1972 or so. He was on about the authoritarian prsonality then already. At that time he posed the question, "Is there an authoritarian on the left?" Most of the class felt that Joseph Stalin, Mao, That nut Causescus or however you spell it, were proof enough that there were authoritarians on the Left. All that was left was for Bob to do was to redefine what a leftist was and he could star up his drumbeat again. We left university for the real world and got an education instead of the leftist indoctrination Bob puts out every day. Too bad he can't get out into the world and get a liberal education instead of serving up reheated ideas from the 70's stored in that narrow minded universty tunnel he hides in. He fantasizes about marching in Berkely, which he was very proud of. Bob it's the same old shit you were spewing 30 or 40 years ago. Your a great guy but get a life! You should have stuck with the cognitive disonance theories you were big on, or perhaps it was causing to much disonance trying to to reconcile all those leftist ideas with the real world.

Conservative White Christian writes: Rhyleh, we agree on Michael Savage and Ann Coulter. Ann is a comedian, our version of Al Franken. Good for the gander don't you know.

And then there are the Christian bigots, like say David Duke who is thankfully languishing in Russia at the moment. The other people on your list I either disagree with you about or do not recognize.

So what is wrong with being a Conservative White Christian? I am neither paranoid nor prone to persecution complexes. Sure, I know somepeople who are, but what is your point in singling out a group by race and religion? Is this some new kind of tolerance? What gives? Are you having a racist moment?

The blogs mentioned are run by democrats who are mad they hear voices and see things. It makes sense that conservatives/Republicans no longer exist and had to be renamed by dems as neocons. Bill Clinton had them all destroyed and offered this new social world for everyone; not that the dems don't realize hearing voices and seeing things is bad, which is why they are mad dems, not neocons.

'Motivated Social Cognition.' Psychologists will not write about this new world we all live in because Clinton thought he could save himself by making sure everybody goes through what he went through(not that we all want to avoid pain, strokes, etc.) Social Psychologists have failed in writing about the new world and hope it going away just reminds us of another dem like Kennedy or someone..........so, even if society recovers social psychologists have failed us in not writing or even commenting on what the new world actually is or was or maybe after a couple of generations we'll forget.

The blogs mentioned are run by democrats who are mad they hear voices and see things. It makes sense that conservatives/Republicans no longer exist and had to be renamed by dems as neocons. Bill Clinton had them all destroyed and offered this new social world for everyone; not that the dems don't realize hearing voices and seeing things is bad, which is why they are mad dems, not neocons.

'Motivated Social Cognition.' Psychologists will not write about this new world we all live in because Clinton thought he could save himself by making sure everybody goes through what he went through(not that we all want to avoid pain, strokes, etc.) Social Psychologists have failed in writing about the new world and hope it going away just reminds us of another dem like Kennedy or someone..........so, even if society recovers social psychologists have failed us in not writing or even commenting on what the new world actually is or was or maybe after a couple of generations we'll forget.

I've posted three comments at FireDogLake over the months. All three were deleted within minutes. The third, they actually wrote a new message in the place of my deleted message saying the opposite of what I said. LOL!

I often read the comments sections on DailyKos and am amazed at how quick the mob is to troll-rate even committed Democrats who dare think for themselves.

I recommend an interesting social experiment: sit down a liberal and a conservative and have them describe each others's philosophy in terms that the other can agree with. (With no bathroom breaks.)

From an outsider's perspective (as an autistic, I'm as "outsider" as you can get and still be mostly human) ... this 1-dimensional debate is unhelpful and not getting anyone very far.

First off, go to at least 2 dimensions ... look at http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html and see a political spectrum of economic-issue-freedom_vs_personal-issue-freedom ... that score breaks people up into 5 zonal categories ... libertarian (high scores on both) vs statist=authoritarian(low scores on both) vs Left=liberal(high-personal,low-economic) vs right=conservative(low-personal,high-economic) vs centrist (mid-on-both). If you feel particularly ambitious, look at the 3D political spectra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Secondly ... my perspective from outside looking at this debate

Liberal = groupist, seeking solutions in the group, group rights, group responsibility, group punishment. Do not judge individuals for their actions, judge only their group or society at large. Depend on society to protect you, not personal gun-ownership. Believe in the benevolence and effectiveness of government and government employees. Big govt is responsible for US prosperity. The state owns your work-output and tax-refunds are the state's generosity. The wishes of society outweighs the rights+needs of the individual. HRC: we will take from you for the greater good. TK: declare war on the cult of individualism.

Conservative = individualist, with personal rights and responsibility. Punish the criminal, do not blame his family, race, town, county, state, society, etc. Protect yourself and your family, the cops only do cleanup anyhow. Believe in the inefficiency of government and its myrmidions. Entrepreneurs are responsible for US prosperity. The rights+needs of the individual outweigh the wishes of society. Reagan: * Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States. * Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. * Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing.

Comprehensively, the state of a person's group-mindedness (significantly tied into the state of their brain's mirror-complex cell-cluster) defines their tendency to be individualist(right) or groupist(left), and their tendency to wish to impose beliefs on others determines their libertarian-authoritarian trend.

Not really, although if the goal of the American Psychologist were to promote objective research, it seems we would see more diversity exhibited within it's pages--other than liberal dogma. If I look at the title of the study, I can usually guess the outcome without reading the study and am rarely surprised by the conclusions. This gets old after a while and it makes me question why they do not include other points of view.

One example that resume the whole Liberal "openeness" is the ACLU fighting to help Muslims/Islam obtain more rights , privileges and lets be honest; more power, and the ACLU also fighting to rid the USA of Catholic...well... anything.

They are open to what they are open to.

Anything else is intolerable to them and thus not tolerated.

Liberals are open to liberals things.Liberals are open to gay mariage, legalising drugs, abortion.

I convinced my grandmother, a lifetime Republican (I'm a registered Democrat & always have been), deeply religious in the best sense of the word (I stick God & Santa Claus in the same category) that she was, in fact, really quite liberal. Took all of five minutes.

Betty Kebler (nee Graham--that's me: I'm the last of the Graham clan) is one of the most open-minded, accepting, engaged (and engaging) human beings I've ever known. She doesn't expect people to do what she does or think what she thinks & is always interested in new ideas.

In my book (and hers--she used to teach library science), that defines her as a liberal.

By the same token, I would argue, and fiercely, that I could be defined as a conservative just as easily--little 'ol lefty-leaning, god-mocking me (just don't mess with my Grandma's God, Bubba, not within earshot of me, you hear?).

I believe in preserving worthwhile institutions. I don't like to tell people what to do or think (but that could make me a liberal, also).

I'm a believer in realpolitik. I define Gulf War I (in retrospect, I had different feelings then) as a strategic success, Somalia as a failure, Kosovo as a brilliant success (I was not a fan of that one at the time, either) and Gulf War II was a criminal failure.

I want the US Navy to kill the DD(X) because it's pure pork. I want the Navy to reactivate the two Iowas left in semi-reserve status (so do the marines, and re-fitting one pretty much indestructible, in modern warfare, Iowa BB, would cost half the price of one snazzy, but modestly effective & very destructible DD(X)).

I favor sane fiscal policy and a re-structuring of medicaid/medicare & welfare that would save a lot of taxpayer dollars AND help a lot more people.

I believe in devolution, whenever possible, of government to state & local levels.

There's no way I'll vote for a Republican Congress and the likelihood that I'll vote for a Democratic President next time around is just as low--I hope and expect to see McCain, who I disagree with on plenty, in the White House.

He's more likely, I believe, then anything the Dems have to offer, to be able to conserve some sanity in an insane world at the executive level.

And the Dems are less prone to sending drooling unstable psychopaths to the House of Reps.

It's a more stable arrangement, you see. And with governments & society, as historian Barbara Tuchman once pointed out, chaos and instability are the least desirable of all states.

Hey, I'd never vote for Chimpy, but that's cause he's nuts and dumb. And I didn't vote for Bush 41, and wouldn't, if I could go back to Clinton's first run...and I'm not a huge Clinton fan.

But I would have voted for Bush 41 his first go, given everything I know now, including the sordid stuff.

Because GHWB was a realpolitician running against a fruitcake.

I even say that Bush 41 really deserves a lot of the credit that Clinton took (some quite deservedly) for freeing us away from the fantasyland of the Reagan-era and starting to rebuild a sane economy that was not built on, ahem, "voodoo economics" & Alzheimer's induced hallucinations.

And I'll cheerfully say that Bush 41 unfairly took the fall, economically, anyway, for his predecessor's fiscal incompetence.

I say all this because, well, liberal as I am, I deeply and passionately appreciate anyone who can conserve some sanity in a mad world, even if he has to be a little nasty about it.

To prove your post, you need only quote random comment threads from LittleGreenFootballs and compare them to threads from DailyKos and... Oh. I mean to say, you need only compare Ann Coulter to... I mean, you need only compare Rush Limb... I mean... LOOK! TERRORISTS! MEXICANS! TERRORISTS FROM MEXICO! RED ALERT! RED!!!